Top Law Schools

completely confused...

from the premise (no conclusion, just a bunch of facts), my diagram is:

economy is weak -> price remain constant + unemployment rises

unemployment rises - > investment decreases

+

investment is not decreasing, draw the following conclusions:

1 unemployment is not rising.
2 the economy is not weak.

A: economy is weak (wrong) or investment is decreasing (contradictory to the premise)

B: if unemployment rises (is there any possibility given the fact that the premise suggested the investment is not decreasing?

C: this may be right... just partial first condition?

D: economy is weak (true), price is constant (maybe, don't know from the premise)

E: unemployment is rising (right), economy is not weak(wrong), but since there is OR, so this counts as right?

really confused about B.....

Listen man I got this question right, and I even started writing a post explaining how I did it, but then half way I realized that my line of reasoning doesn't really lead to the right answer either, so I'll do the least I can and bump this for you (and me).

Choice B doesn't state that unemployment is rising. Rather, it poses a hypothetical conditional relationship which we must compare to the first two statements in the stimulus. Since neither of the conditionals directly relates unemployment to price stability, choice B could be true. Choice C, on the other hand, must be true. Breaking the first statement into two pieces gives the following two chains:
economy weak → prices constant
economy weak → unemployment rises → investment decreases